Wikipedia talk:User experience feedback/New features

Tabs at the top of the page?
Tabs at the top of the page? What are you talking about? There aren't necessarily any tabs at the top of a Wikipedia page. It depends totally upon which skin you choose. And I've never had tabs at the top of the page. Don't intend to start either. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 01:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

11 May 2010, 02:40
When is 1.16 going to be available? I don't know if I should keep waiting or just install the beta. If it's longer than a few months then I probably want to install the beta. I did searches and can not find a date for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.138.199.2 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will you address your question to Wikitech-l?--Shuhari (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a big hassle. I was hoping I could just get a straight up answer here, i figured there was a planned release date already. --124.138.199.2 (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

11 May 2010, 02:56
How about a 'go to top' button/link at the bottom of each page? -- someone else who didn't bother to sign in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.85.220 (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called the "Home" button. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

11 May 2010, 03:30
Is this the "beta" version that I have heard about, or will it be under a different name? Also, when will this updating go into effect? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the beta version. The transition will take place Thursday morning (UTC) sometime.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to the transition. I hope I'll like it. And I'll hope that it will make wikipedia function easier for people. Thanks. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert label of tab for this page from "Discussion" to "Talk"?
The tab for the talk page is labelled "Discussion". Could the label be changed back to "Talk" (which it was originally)? This is an important page and it is invariably still referred to as the "Talk" page, even on official Wikipedia pages. To label it "Discussion" is therefore unhelpful. I would say "Talk" is more descriptive of the informal exchange of thoughts that happens on a talk page. UBJ 43X (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, all "talk" pages on Wikipedia are labeled discussion....  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with the original comment above. (The response is ambiguous—I can't tell whether it agrees or disagrees with the original comment, or possibly even doesn't address the main point at all.)  I'm a relative newcomer to WP, and initially I was very confused and frustrated by the consistent references to "Talk" pages.  Labeling the tab "Discussion" but calling it a "Talk" page is an example of extremely poor human-factors engineering and GUI design.  The tab's label should be completely consistent with what the page is called.  --Jackftwist (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I absolutely misread the original comment. I thought they were speaking of THIS page in particular.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't something that the Usability Team controls – it's something that the local enwiki community controls: MediaWiki:Talk. You should start a discussion on WP:VP/R.  Cbrown1023    talk   18:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

11 May 2010, 07:51
I don't like the new look... I like it the way it is... I've been here for 2 3/4 years and I find this way of navigation fine... oh well... Rory Re  loaded  07:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You will be free to switch your skin back to Monobook after the new features are rolled-out. :-)  Cbrown1023   talk   18:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested edits to project page
Project page is non-editable for non-admins, which is annoying. Following edits are suggested: - Hordaland (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Editing toolbar improvements: We have reorganized the editing toolbar to make easier to use. Now, formatting pages is simpler and more intuitive.  Change "to make easier to use" to "to make it easier to use".
 * 2) Link wizard: An easy-to-use tool allows you to add links to other wiki pages as well as links to external sites. There are countless wiki pages on the web which are not Wikipedia pages.  Change "wiki" to "Wikipedia".
 * 3) In the image, the term "wiki" is used erroneously (again). Change to "Wikipedia".
 * On your second and third points: the link wizard allows you to link, for instance, to Wikisource pages, which are not Wikipedia pages. To limit it to Wikipedia pages would be incorrect.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick fixes on #1 and #2 above. I don't understand your comment here, and don't appreciate the language.  - Hordaland (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand that... but it wasn't my language. It got edited.  See  for my revision. (Note for the record: the text above had been vandalized and Hordaland was quite right to be offended by it)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: I complained about the IP (a school) who changed Philippe's comment and language, and it has now been blocked for one week for vandalism. Good news, IMO. --Hordaland (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Large concern on Link Wizard (external links)
Since this isn't anywhere in the FAQ I wanted to mention here-- I kind of feel a need to wave giant red flags over this "Link Wizard" idea. It's entirely great on paper, but as an editing tool I don't see much benefit either in time or functionality versus just typing it in using existing wiki markup for the majority. The fact it'll sort out text displayed if different is more user-friendly so I can appreciate it to be something that might hook and hold newer editors trying to get into the groove of edits. Question on this; how does it handle (or can it handle in general) cases where cross-namespace linking is normal and acceptable and might not involve the mainspace at all? I mean user pages, user talk, Wikipedia namespace WT, etc?

Openly offering a "simplified" way to add external links worries me, however. It's already quite easy, but from how it's shown in the same pop-up as entered in the same text field as links to other wiki pages gives a dangerous impression that external links can and perhaps even should be added just as openly. Articles have a separated section for this for a reason, and fighting to control external link spam and adherence to guidelines is already hard to keep up with. As with the above, there are a few choice times I can see it as convenient to less experienced editors so I agree it has merit, but it should certainly have a warning on this. Is there already a way we could (or can already) list, say, "articles in the project namespace containing links to external websites in any section other than 'External Links'" ...? A lot of web sites have massive linking to external locations in normal page text and are looked upon in frustration on the (almost universally a flag tod buysut these are advert services. Besides it just being an eyesore and possibly frustrating visitors into not wanting to visit or not trusting our articles anting to click around and explore (I'll completely avoid any site with embedded external links on normal pages, personally), it again just pushes editors toward including these links within articles.

Good thing I ran into this post, or I'd not have known of this simplification process. I understand that no policy or guidelines are being changed, but with that said I openly point to WP:ELNO for just the basics we try to follow. If I"M horribly out of touch with reality on this all, IThanks for your time in reading. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment. The link wizard was designed to encourage internal links as much as supporting valid external links.  If you start typing the topic you are interested in linking, it suggests the existing articles.  I do not agree that link wizard will increase the insertion of external link over the wiki syntax.  It is up to editors if they adhere to the recommended style guide, and spreading good practices require outreach programs and mentoring in my opinion. --Shuhari (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * After some further consideration I realized that such attempts to change or add to articles as I detailed would also very much stand out to recent change patrols in view of a differential and thus I'd previously overestimated possible cases; In actuality this would be a fraction of a fraction of all external links added. With recent debate to extend a hand and offer unofficial good-faith protections to new editors I completely agree that outreach can do a lot. Should be interesting to see if this encourages improved wikilinks in articles and the use of some added external links turned into sources where relevant. Thanks for your time to reply, and we shall see if this can result in higher quality of new articles in particular since they're most always vulnerable to zealous speedy deletions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

11 May 2010, 13:14 UTC
God dammit... Wikipedia is gonna be destroyed, just like youtube got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.166.19.251 (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What?
"Now, the tabs at the top of each page more clearly define whether you are viewing the page or discussion page, and whether you are reading or editing a page."

They already do that quite nicely. As does the content of the page. If it isn't broken don't fix it.

How about a Ribbon?
Why not just go all the way and clone the Micro$oft ribbon. That way we can all be more productive...NOT I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Tajumulco!
volcano tajumulco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.61.191 (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...?
I know my input won't be considered, but why "fix" something that isn't "broken"?? I think Wikipedia is fine the way it is. YouTube has been doing the same thing. The bottom line is, you won't find 100% complete satisfaction among 100% of Wikipedia editors/readers, or 100-100 sat. among YouTube uploaders/viewers, regardless of how it looks. Why "update" something if the only motive behind such an action is to look "updated"? Have we not learned a thing from Microsoft's unhealthy obsession with "Eye-Candy" that takes top priority over other very important things? I think I'll just shut my trap, because I'm probably wasting my time... 24.10.181.254 (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Facebook is doing that now and it's becoming stupider and stupider by the minute. Commissarusa (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also agree. The new look as a clumsy and unnecessary feel about it. Wikipedias current style has a simplistic, easy to use interface that's so perfect for it's function there's no need to change it at all. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The current look is outdated as hell, especially when comparing it to other online packages like wordpress. If wordpress is windows 7 in terms of aesthetics, then mediawiki is windows 2000. I wish there were more skins that resembled the skins on wikia. --124.138.199.2 (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Functionality > looking "new" and "cool". 82.44.55.254 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh so you're one of the idiots who say "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and try to stop all progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.227.89 (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said progress is bad. "Fixing" something that need not be fixed (yes, I confess that may be a matter of opinion) is bad. I used the cliche because cliches, though annoying, can get a point across a lot easier than trying to think of a sophisticated way of saying it. I'm lazy, OK? Most people would rather employ an overused saying than actually waste time trying to come up with something clever in a world where clever isn't necessarily synonymous with cool. @ Commissarusa: Yeah, I got rid of Facebook, so sick of websites trying to outdo each other from a User Interface perspective. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I invite you all to view the highlight videos from the first usability study. Majority of the usability study participants were overwhelmed and frustrated when they were ask to edit Wikipedia.  --Shuhari (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If people can't grasp how to use wikipedias fairly simple interface after a little trail and error and reading the help pages, then perhaps they aren't the type of people Wikipedia should be encouraging to edit the encyclopedia. Everyone can still read it. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This was my first thought when I saw the notification at the top of the article, and then I read what they were doing. I'm used to websites (like Facebook, mentioned earlier) that change things for absolutely no reason, making it more difficult to navigate the site because you have to learn a new way every few months. These changes are perfect. Wikipedia search has always been a joke, and the tabs at the top are not intuitive at all (I know I have gotten turned around more than once). I find missing or broken links all the time, more than any other problem on the site, these should be quick and easy to edit. Most importantly though, if you are already a wikipedia pro, very little of your day-to-day use of the site will be changed. You don't have to learn anything new, and that justifies any change. "If ain't broke don't fix it" eh? How about "If it doesn't hurt, why not?" 67.9.12.12 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've got to admit these changes are perfect. But yeah, that's my first reaction when I see a website changed--The first thought that goes through my mind is "Oh crap, what did they do?!" But yeah, I agree with 67.9.12.12; I initially thought that this was a bad idea, but they didn't butcher it like YouTube and Facebook tend to do. The changes are so minor that you get used to it almost instantly, and the changes are very welcome. I like it a lot. Good job, Wikipedia! And thanks for making subtle changes, instead of completely reworking the UI! This isn't confusing at all! This is good! 24.10.181.254 (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about the editing Wizard...
Will it be like Wikia's? L D E J R u f f  (see what I've contributed ) 17:34, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

opt out
Is there a way to opt out (on any wiki) if consensus so determines? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean by wiki/project basis? Which project do you have in mind?  The User Experience Programs team at Wikimedia Foundation is hoping to offer the usability improvements to all Wikimedia projects in all languages.  The overall average beta retention rate was around 80%, while the beta retention rate for English Wikipedia was slightly higher.  You can find the detailed beta results here.  We are working with the language communities whose beta acceptance are no so great to improve the beta acceptance.  --Shuhari (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple English Wikipedia. I just want to know whether it is possible or not. Naturally anyone who wastes their time with beta is probably going to keep it. If it is, I can continue to the next step of getting a consensus together, and getting a bugzilla report filed. Griffinofwales (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be possible for a wiki to opt-out of the new default skin. Is it possible now for a wiki to opt-out of monobook as the default skin?  Nope, so it would make sense that a wiki won't be able to opt-out if it's vector either.  Cbrown1023    talk   18:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Wikinews has used Vector as default for several months. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Site notice
Will the new features work as well as the current site notice about them? See this. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The site notice had a trouble hiding for a short period of time, but it can be hid now. :-) --Shuhari (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Would we still be able to use the old (current) look?
If we so preferred, of course. I'm sure I'm not the only one who simply doesn't prefer the new look. - 30 ( talk ) 01:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the new interface does not work out for you, or if you prefer to your current interface (monobook), just follow the "Take me back" link on the top of the page, which will appear after the release. You can also have a preview how this works in the prototype.--Shuhari (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would that be like on Commons? Because there, one reverts only to the old (Monobook) look, but not to the old functionality. And if your editing style relies heavily on mouse gestures to switch between editing mode and e.g. checking out whether a link needs to be dab'd, the Javascript-heavy new version does not work properly (it often does a reload, reverting to the unedited version. Lost several hours' worth of work on Commons already). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, part of my question was referring to the edit screen as well. I'd like to know that too. Thank you. - 30 ( talk ) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think most of the Usability improvements have their own preferences checkboxes so that you can deactivate the ones you don't like. See commons:Special:Preferences.  Cbrown1023    talk   18:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This might not be enough. It disables the scripts, but the problem might have to do more with something in the code (perhaps simply its complexity - having to check which scripts are enabled when building a page perhaps?) . The edit window is refreshed (from the saved wikicode) when it shouldn't be.
 * I really fear that this might be a major lemon. Sure it flattens the learning curve initially (a very good thing), but I think there really should be a "legacy" switch, which restores the present UI. Not just "legacy style", but the whole codebase. For those who know it (and arguably, this involves essentially all of the major-league editors for the time being, and for some time to come), the present barebones UI has everything needed (via the drop-down menus), has sleek and efficient code, and is utterly stable. It would not be a good idea at all to dump it entirely.
 * I am not a programmer, but I think it would not at all be hard to implement this. A simple Preferences item which sets (via cookie? or something better) the default css directory of the edit pages to a directory cluster containing the old css (and related) code. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots
It'd been nice if the screenshots were bigger. They're so small I can't tell what I'm looking at. Ttenchantr (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I do you one better? ;-) There's actually a prototype site with a copy of the English Wikipedia that you can play with.  You could also check out the new Usability features on Commons, which already got the rollout.  Cbrown1023    talk   18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've noticed that the Wikipeida's new look is very similar to the Wikinews page, so you could check that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.89.175 (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Link wizard
If I stage a large rally, could I get people to refer to the Link wizard as the Lizard? Maybe a conference. Or a wikiproject! Joe407 (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"next few days"
This is very vague - what sort of timescale are we actually talking about? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikimedia Tech Blog post, "the default interface switch of English Wikipedia will take place at 5:00am UTC on May 13. The deployment process is expected to last for two to three hours."  Cbrown1023   talk   18:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we have to keep it ugly
Somehow i find the new look quite ugly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikion (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can these new features be used with other Mediawiki wikis?
If so, does anyone know the timing? I checked Mediawiki & searched elsewhere but no mention. Love this. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.114.206.34 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the Usability improvements are free software, just like MediaWiki, so they'll be available to people who own other MediaWiki installations. I think installing mw:Extension:UsabilityInitiative is how you setup the improvements on your wiki, but I'm not entirely sure.  Cbrown1023    talk   18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

'this sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.80.80 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Twenty Four Point. May 13 Is Tomorrow. And It Is That For The Date. Whoa. __01:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk)

Does AnyBoday Know The Day. It Seems May 13. It Is ReaLLy May Twelve. How Come. Write back. __01:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk)

Beta users
Will beta users have to do anything special after the cutover? -- Robster2001 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Horrible
This version moves important elements, like the search function, to the far right. Not only will people have problems finding the function, as it is so far removed from every other important function, like the navigation menu, for people with large screen resolutions it takes a lot of mouse moving to get there. --84.178.88.192 (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Search box
I am having problems with the search box under the new look - it keeps truncating the text I type. For example, I recently typed "Northern Ireland" into the box and hit return. At the moment of hitting return, the text got truncated to "Northern I" and that was what was then searched for, yielding a search page informing me there were no exact results for that term. I am using Firefox 3.6 on Windows Vista. Thanks, and any ideas as to why this is happening would be appreciated! &mdash; SteveRwanda (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

problems with Opera 9.27
I cannot see the languages or what is under interaction, toolbox, or print/export even when I click on them, (nothing happpens).

--Merijn2 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got a question.
Is there reasoning behind this change? Is there an explanation or a link to one for this updating? I don't mind the update, but I'll have to get used to it over time. At least I was previously warned about this (conveniently), instead of other websites that have released crappy updates without warning *cough**cough*myspaceyoutubefacebook*cough*. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually now have been used to them; that took effect very soon after the installments. I like the updates. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)